At this special time of the year, the t.v. screens are flooded with adverts for sales of furniture, electronics, clothing. Fair enough, if the marketing people want to pull the punters in, they reduce the prices from inflated levels to more acceptable numbers, and after all, that’s what it’s all about. But have you noticed a slightly sinister message in adverts for one type of product? Booze, in all it’s many forms is the target of a slightly twisted message; at least that’s what seems to be happening as far as I can tell.

The message, on screens all over the United Kingdom is seemingly simple, when they all say the same thing:-

Drink XXXXXXXX responsibly!

Has anyone ever thought to go behind this message, which is carried by all types of alcoholic beverage, from wines both fine and not-so-fine, through various beers and lagers to the blended and malt whiskies of Scotland. Let’s be honest, apart from the very few connoisseurs of spirits or wines around, who can tell a vintage, a label or a distillery by the merest sniff of a cork, the vast majority of drinkers drink for effect; in other words, to feel a buzz, to get merry, or even to get smashed!

So our political overlords must have sent the word out to all the booze makers, and the message must have said, "Our strategy of twenty-four hour drinking hasn’t worked, Britain is still getting drunk, so you must rein your customers in before we ban all booze adverts!"

Drink Responsibly! To any Englishman, Scots, Welsh or Northern Irishman, the message says only one thing,

Property Law throughout the civilised world has been seen as fairly uniform. If you make something, pay for something, or inherit something, it’s usually accepted as belonging to you! No one can take it from you without buying it, and not suffer the penalties listed under the varying Laws regarding property. If you give it to someone, or bequeath it as part of your estate, the worst which may happen is that you may be required to pay either a ‘gift’ tax or ‘death duties’ if part of an estate.

When the worst excesses of the Nazis had been covered by the Nuremburg Tribunals, which resulted in the executions of some of the leaders of that truly evil movement, the eyes of the world turned elsewhere, and it was only much later that the full extent of the Continental plunder of art both public and private was realised by the West; and attempts made to restore these items, paintings, sculpture, objets’ d’art to their lawful owners, or in most cases their decendants, as the owners had perished in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and other Nazi death-camps.

The only Government which opposed the searchers in their efforts to restore private property was that of the Soviet Union, but it was always assumed that this was the ‘Reds’ being their normal obstinate, distrustful selves, and not much notice was therefore taken of their stubborn refusals.

Fast forward now to 2005, and the seizure on the Swiss border of an art shipment at the request of the trading company Noga on the grounds of a claimed Russian government debt. The shipment was released after intervention by the Swiss Government, but the Russians remained nervous. Fast forward once more, and we arrive early this year when negotiations were taking place for the British display of a huge exhibit from Russia’s Hermitage museum, as well as many other places within the former Soviet Union, but once again the ‘Reds’ commenced baulking as they knew that many of the exhibits destined for the exhibition were items pillaged from private collections after the butchery of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.

So our political masters listened to the wilting flowers of the Department for Culture, and commenced a dialogue to check what impact Legislation would have if an anti-seizure Bill was piloted through both Houses at Westminster; and included in this ‘dialogue’ was the supremely cynical statement that if nothing was done “there would be damage to the UK’s status as a leading cultural venue!"

A timetable for Legislation was then prepared with a Second Reading in the Commons slated for 5th March 2008 after all procedure through the Lords. The country’s most useless M.P. David Lammy, recently promoted well above his level of incompetence even said “ The Bill has been introduced in the House of Lords and will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny.” But someone smelt a rat, and heard that there were moves in the Commons to defy the whips, and push a rebel vote against the Bill through the Commons, so we now read that C ulture Secretary James Purnell had made the order to bring the legislation in on 31 December. So this supremely cynical and self-serving piece of Communist-friendly legislation wasn’t even heard within the House of Commons. We can now look forward to lots of art exhibits from the Soviets, full of exhibits which they were shit-scared to send out before for fear that they would be expropriated by their rightful owners or decendants of their owners, all for the greater glory of New Labour, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and all the other names within the collective thieves’ kitchen known as the Labour Government.

I believe that the sales department of the Telegraph advertisement, not normally known for an ironic attitude, has surpassed itself in the dying days of this year. They ran a 2/3 page advert on Page 18 of the Saturday Telegraoh which purports to be a message from a whole bunch of Islamic scholars and ‘wise men’ (where did I read that before?) which wishes, amongst other things, that "the coming year be one in which the sanctity and dignity of human life is upheld by all…etc., etc., etc.."

It also quotes from the "Chapter of Mary" in their koran, as well as a link to ‘A Common Word’ which you may or may not wish to visit; as well as another link to further islamic writings, and a prayer that everyone should get along together, as Christmas this year coincides with the ‘haj’ or pilgrimage.

The statements which do not appear in this smug slushy garbage are any sign of repentance for deeds and words in the past, such as the deaths of the 2996 in the Twin Towers, or the 4,335 American servicemen and women who have perished at the hands, bombs or bullets of Islamic muslim terrorists in Iraq. It does not repudiate the filth which was preached in the mosques in Birmingham so graphically pictured in the Channel 4 Documentary ‘Undercover Mosque’, not does it explain why there are absolutely no Christian places of worship, or Synagogues for that matter, in Saudi Arabia, for example.

The text of this advert, which appears at a cost of many thousands of pounds, doesn’t repudiate the well-known Islamic hatred of homosexuals, of women in general and any woman who dares to show her face uncovered in particular; it certainly does not repudiate the executions in Iran of those same homosexuals just for being homosexual. We are supposed to ignore reports such as this, we’re supposed to forget images like this, and accept that all is sweetness and light.

It’s 66 years since the place I was at earlier today was ablaze with death and destruction wrought by the Japanese on an unsuspecting American navy. I was at the Arizona Memorial – the last resting place for 1177 sailors killed when the ship literallt tore inself apart as a result of Japanese bombing. Reading the names of all those killed, including many from the SAME family, was a sad business.

Pearl Harbor is now a peaceful place – the dead rest where they fell. But it struck me that the reason why so many casualties happened was because of a series of human errors.

It was with mounting anger, but without much surprise, that I read of yet another instance of state-sponsored anti-white discrimination. This time, it’s taking place in the education system.

Among the various sources of funding available to schools, is the "Black Pupils Achievement Programme" (BPAP – not to be confused with the similar but much more expensive "Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant" (EMAG)), funded by the government, and therefore the (generally white) taxpayer, to the tune of £1.3million a year. The BPAP, to which over a hundred schools have so far signed up, was instituted in order to rectify the supposed under-achievement of non-white schoolchildren. As part of the programme, schools are given money to send all their pupils on regular trips to art galleries, museums, and the offices of local companies, in order to inspire them to work hard. All their pupils, that is, except those who happen to be white. They are excluded.

Other aspects of the BPAP include altering the school curriculum to ensure that it reflects the "experiences of African-Caribbean and Muslim pupils". As such, children at those schools that have signed up to the programme will now be studying the topography of Caribbean islands in their Geography classes, and will be analysing rap music during their English classes. Will the lyrics studied include those by performers such as Ice Cube and Public Enemy, who openly advocate hatred of, and sometimes violence against, whites, I wonder?

There are two main issues and two subsidiary points to be made here. First, these classes which are now being restructured in order to fit with the "experiences" of blacks and Muslims presumably include white pupils as well: I assume that even they are not excluded from all education. Well, this being so, I would ask what is being done to reflect the "experiences" of white pupils? This is a pertinent question: at the beginning of 2007 Sir Keith Ajegbo’s report on citizenship lessons in schools revealed that white working class children often suffer "labelling and discrimination", especially in racially-mixed areas. Sir Keith wrote that white working class children:

…can feel beleaguered and marginalised, finding their own identities under threat as much as minority ethnic children…

With particular relevance to the present case, he added that:

It makes no sense in our report to focus on minority ethnic pupils without trying to address and understand the issues for white pupils. It is these white pupils whose attitudes are overwhelmingly important in creating community cohesion. Nor is there any advantage in creating confidence in minority ethnic pupils if it leaves white pupils feeling disenfranchised and resentful.

Sir Keith cited the example of a white British girl, who, having heard that her classmates came from such centres of vibrant diversity as the Congo, Portugal, Trinidad, and Poland, declared that she "came from nowhere". I cannot see that the negative perceptions that many native children have of their identity will be improved by such measures as the replacement of white poets with black rappers in the English curriculum.

More generally, I wonder why there is this especial focus on non-whites. While it is true that some non-white groups achieve poorer exam results, on average, than whites, it is also the case that white working class boys generally perform worse than any other group. Their results are also improving at a slower rate than those of other groups. So why are no measures being taken to remedy their poverty of achievement? Indeed, why is it that, so far from being helped, they are being actively discriminated against, in the manner detailed above?

To conclude, I would draw readers’ attention to the fact that Trevor Phillips, the man responsible for ensuring that discrimination does not occur in Britain, refused to comment on this blatant instance of unfair treatment. I doubt that he would have been so reticent, had the Education Department been using taxpayers’ money to send white children on trips, from which non-whites were excluded. And I would ask whether any reader, having observed the manner in which the present elite is thus discriminating against and failing the white working class, can honestly criticise any member of that class who then votes for the BNP? Because I don’t think you can.

Democrat Hillary Clinton called on Friday for an international probe of Benazir Bhutto’s killing and candidates in both parties sparred over foreign policy six days before Iowa kicks off a close presidential nominating race.

Clinton, battling rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards for the lead in Iowa, questioned the reliability of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s government after opposition leader Bhutto’s assassination.

"I don’t think the Pakistani government at this time under President Musharraf has any credibility at all," Clinton said in an interview with CNN as she campaigned across Iowa. "Therefore I am calling for a full independent international investigation."

Considering Obama threatened to invade Pakistan a couple of months ago, calling for an investigation may be a no-lose proposition.

But seriously, Pantsuit, everyone wants to know what happened.

It’s not as if you’re going out on a limb here.

And tell us, how exactly would this independent international investigation take place and under whose jurisdiction?

Bhutto’s killing on Thursday prompted candidates to flex their foreign policy muscles and, in the case of Clinton and Edwards, tout their experience. Several other Democrats leveled harsh criticism at Musharraf.

Muscles?

Huh?

I suffered through a couple of Democrat debates and cannot honestly recall Pervez Musharraf’s name ever coming up.

Now we’re supposed to take these Democrats seriously when it comes to foreign policy and the dire situation in Pakistan and the region?

Please.

At least one sober adult weighed in.

Republican Fred Thompson, a former Tennessee senator who is lagging in Iowa polls and trying to make up ground, warned against rushing to a conclusion on Musharraf and said candidates should be more "deliberate" on Pakistan.

"I don’t think it would be a good idea to call for him to step down now," Thompson told CNN. "I hope that we as candidates out here don’t start lobbing these ideas that get plenty of attention but are not very sound."

At this point when we have several different accounts of what happened Thursday in Pakistan, it’s wholly irresponsible for presidential candidates to start sticking their noses into an investigation.

It’s to be assumed the White House and State Department are fully informed of developments. Should they choose to brief top candidates, it’s their choice.

At this time, however, Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the shameless Democrats ought to step back and stop being so reckless with our foreign policy.

After all, she and her husband’s first and foremost priority is to "repair our image" with the rest of the world, no? How exactly will that be accomplished by making reckless statements and proposing absurd ideas as a full independent international investigation?

We were on an Island tour a few days back, and we had the pleasure of listening to the commentary from a reasonably elderly Hawaiian coach driver. He talked about his life, his love of the island. He said how much he enjoyed working and how there was enough jobs here for all who want to work. I got the impression most people chose work over doing nothing and it got me thinking about what it is that distinguishes the work ethic here in the USA from that of the UK. There is a simple answer – the absence of socialism.

People here like to work. they seem pleased to serve, to facilitate, to earn their livelihood. Now I am sure this is not 100% perfect for EVERYONE but we do not live in utopia. However socialists of the sort that infest the UK (AND Europe) do not let this reality get in their way. They have determined that the work ethic is of limited importance. Statism is the name of the game in Euroweenie land and hence we see large swathes of the population with no interest or need in gaining useful employment. They can leach off the State care off the Welfare System and the State can find this by taxing those poor suckers who do work “until the pips squeak”. It’s a vicious system but once people get hooked on the idea that they do not have to work, it becomes like a drug to them, they demand more benefits and politicians line up to offer such.

I happen to believe there is a nobility in doing an honest day’s work. (One more reason why I detest politicians) Be it blue collar or otherwise, earning a living is a good thing for the human spirit. Socialism sees it differently. It’s hatred of meritocracy, its’ contempt for the human will to achieve guarantees it will poison any society that embraces it. Alas the UK has embraced socialism and it is destroying the work ethic for millions of people. The US has not YET fully supped from this poison chalice but if Hillary Clinton gets into the White House, fundamental damage to the work ethic will be done and so I hope this will not happen.

When I reflect on my Hawaiian coach driver who was proud to turn up for a day’s work, and then I think of all those millions of British people too indolent to do the same, I see the sickness of socialism manifest and warn my American friends that this way disaster lies.

We are told by Brendan Barber, the head of the Trades Union Congress, that the ‘Soar-away Super-rich’ are becoming ‘cut off from the rest’ of us, and simmering resentment is caused by continuous low pay rises in the Public Sector. In plain English, what he is calling for is a massive tax burden to be placed on those who are talented or lucky enough to be earning super money, and that this tax revenue be then spread amongst all his low-paid ‘Public Sector’ workers, (most of whom, strangely enough, are union members) But Mr. Barber isn’t being entirely truthful with either his statements, his union members or his mathematics.

The super-sized pay-packets of the few are untouchable, primarily because of arrangements made with the Treasury. The philosophy being that if these people bring their talents and entrepeneurial skills to Britain, the work and jobs which result more than balances the miniscule taxes which these people pay. As you might know, any British person is taxed not only on his U.K. earnings, but also on any income which he or she drives from sources overseas, and most people who come to live in the U.K. do likewise; that’s the rules! If you don’t like it, go somewhere else! But a few are given these tax breaks on the basis that if they come, we’ll get the extra tax from those they employ, and if they don’t come here, they’ll go elsewhere! It’s not very pretty, but, hey, who said everything in Britain was fair or nice?

Anyway, back to our Mr. Barber, the champion of the poorly-paid. If the Chancellor had a brainstorm, and slapped a windfall tax, and worked out a way to give all the Union members a hike in pay with the proceeds, they’d end up with about thirty-five pence each. Very shortly afterwards, our uber-rich foreign friends would pack their sleeping bags and depart for friendlier climates, and the jobs would disappear as well!

Just as a final thought, anyone know what Brendan Barber makes each year? Anyone heard of his plea to be paid less so his staff can get a little more? You’d have to be the owner of a really good pair of ears to hear that little gem!

I was sorry to read about the brutal assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan today. I see that my fellow writers here already have covered it but there were a few points that I wanted to make;

Firstly, her death is shocking but not entirely unexpected. Pakistan is a seething volatile state and Musharraf has held back from firmly prosecuting the war on terror on the Al Queda terrorists that reside within his own borders. This carries severe consequences since Al Queda has been allowed to regroup and its murderous intent remains the same – with the extra caveat that Pakistans’ nuclear resources must present the Jihadi with even more motivation to destabilise that country. The lesson here is that the Pakistan MUST now move to eradicate Al Queda. Wazirstan has been handed over to the uber fanatics and this must now be firmly reversed. Elsewhere. in those border towns with Afghanistan where Jihadi plan their suicide missions on US forces, action must also be taken. Pakistan CANNOT be with us and against us. Period. Tokenism will not suffice in any meaningful way.

Second, I think we must salute the courage of Ms Bhutto. I remember thinking that her return to her homeland some months ago was incredibly brave, or tremendously foolhardy. Maybe both. But for her to be lose her life as she tried to bring about a more democratic society was a high price to pay for a noble ideal.

Third, the actual nature of the act of murder that has taken place reminds us all just how craven, how EVIL, the Islamic Jihadi are. It strikes me that when one contemplates their profound wickedness, then surely we must all unite in seeking to defeat them. From where I stand, the best way to defeat them is to wipe them out, without mercy. They must be given no sanctuary, no hope, no nothing. Al Queda love death as we love life. Let them be given their wish.

***New and Exclusive***
Here's one for any budding Sherlock Holmes out there!
The strange case of Anna Soubry's mi… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

THE PRICE OF REWARDING TERRORISM

You do not defeat terrorism by rewarding terrorists, regardless of how many bleeding heart liberals argue otherwise. Want to know where that flawed approach leads to? Read UNIONISM DECAYED 1997-2007 - It's my first book and it explains what happens when you seeek to appease terrorists and call it peace. It's available right now for ATW readers so make sure you get your copy by emailing the editor! This is the book that dissents from the herd mentality that doing wrong can lead to being right. It doesn't and this book spells out WHY.

Copyright & copy; 2010 A Tangled Web (All rights reserved).Comments on articles here are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of A Tangled Web or David Vance. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise unacceptable may be deleted by the Editor. However the fact a particular comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by David Vance of the views expressed therein.